Prevent & preempt or pre-empt

Prevent (pronounced pri-vent)

(1) To keep from occurring; avert; hinder, especially by the taking of some precautionary action.

(2) To hinder or stop from doing something.

(3) To act ahead of; to forestall (archaic).

(4) To precede or anticipate (archaic).

(5) To interpose a hindrance.

(6) To outdo or surpass (obsolete).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English preventen (anticipate), from the Latin praeventus, past participle of (1) praevenīre (to anticipate; come or go before, anticipate), the construct being prae- (pre; before) + ven- (stem of venīre (come)) + -tus (the past participle suffix) and (2) praeveniō (I anticipate), the construct being prae- (pre; before) + veniō (I come).  In Classical Latin the meaning was literal but in Late Latin, by the 1540s the sense of “to prevent” had emerged, the evolution explained by the idea of “anticipate to hinder; hinder from action by opposition of obstacles”.  That meaning seems not to have entered English until the 1630s.

The adjective preventable (that can be prevented or hindered) dates from the 1630s, the related preventability a decade-odd later.  The adjective preventative (serving to prevent or hinder) is noted from the 1650s and for centuries, dictionaries have listed it as an irregular formation though use seems still prevalent; preventive is better credentialed but now appears relegated to be merely an alternative form.  The adjective preventive (serving to prevent or hinder; guarding against or warding off) has the longer pedigree (used since the 1630s) and was from the Latin praevent-, past-participle stem of praevenīre (to anticipate; come or go before, anticipate).  It was used as a noun in the sense of "something taken or done beforehand” since the 1630s and had entered the jargon of medicine by the 1670s, and under the influence of the physicians came the noun preventiveness (the quality of being preventive).  The noun prevention came from the mid-fifteenth century prevencioun (action of stopping an event or practice), from the Medieval Latin preventionem (nominative preventio) (action of anticipating; a going before), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of the Classical Latin praevenīre.  The original sense in English has been obsolete since at least the late seventeenth century although it was used in a poetically thus well into the 1700s.  Prevent is a verb, preventable (or preventible), preventive & preventative are adjectives, preventability (or preventibility) is a noun and preventably (preventibly) is an adverb.  The archaic spelling is prævent.

Many words are associated with prevent including obstruct, obviate, prohibit, rule out, thwart, forbid, restrict, hamper, halt, forestall, avoid, restrain, hinder, avert, stop, impede, inhibit, bar, preclude, counter, limit & block.  Prevent, hamper, hinder & impede refer to so degree of stoppage of action or progress.  “To prevent” is to stop something by forestalling action and rendering it impossible.  “To hamper” or “to hinder” is to clog or entangle or put an embarrassing restraint upon; not necessarily preventing but certainly making more difficult and both refer to a process or act intended to prevent as opposed to the prevention.  “To impede” is to make difficult the movement or progress of anything by interfering with its proper functioning; it implies some physical or figurative impediment designed to prevent something.

Preempt or pre-empt (pronounced pree-empt)

(1) To occupy (usually public) land in order to establish a prior right to buy.

(2) To acquire or appropriate before someone else; take for oneself; arrogate.

(3) To take the place of because of priorities, reconsideration, rescheduling, etc; supplant.

(4) In bridge, to make a preemptive bid (a high opening bid, made often a bluff by a player holding a weak hand, in an attempt to shut out opposition bidding).

(5) To forestall or prevent (something anticipated) by acting first; preclude; head off.

(6) In computer operating systems, the class of actions used by the OS to determine how long a task should be executed before allowing another task to interact with OS services (as opposed to cooperative multitasking where the OS never initiates a context switch one running process to another.

(7) In the jargon of broadcasting, a euphemism for "cancel” (technical use only).

1830: An invention of US English, a back formation from preemption which was from the Medieval Latin praeēmptiō (previous purchase), from praeemō (buy before), the construct being prae- (pre; before) + emō (buy).  The creation related to the law or real property (land law), to preempt (or pre-empt) being “to occupy public land so as to establish a pre-emptive title to it".  In broadcasting, by 1965 it gained the technical meaning of "set aside a programme and replace it with another" which was actually a euphemism for "cancel”.  Preempt is a verb (and can be a noun in the jargon of broadcasting and computer coding), preemptor is a noun and preempted, preemptory, preemptive & preemptible are adjectives.  The alternative spelling is pre-empt and the (rare) noun plural preempts.

In law, broadcasting and computer operating system architecture, preempt has precise technical meanings but when used casually, it can either overlap or be synonymonous with words like claim, usurp, confiscate, acquire, expropriate, seize, assume, arrogate, anticipate, commandeer, appropriate, obtain, bump, sequester, take, usurp, annex & accroach.  The spelling in the forms præemption, præ-emption etc is archaic).

Preemptive and Preventive War

A preemptive war is a military action by one state against another which is begun with the intent of defeating what is perceived to be an imminent attack or at least gaining a strategic advantage in the impending (and allegedly unavoidable) war before that attack begins. The “preemptive war” is sometimes confused with the “preventive war”, the difference being that the latter is intended to destroy a potential rather than imminent threat; a preventative war may be staged in the absence of enemy aggression or even the suspicion of military planning.  In international law, preventive wars are now generally regarded as aggressive and therefore unlawful whereas a preemptive war can be lawful if authorized by the UN Security Council as an enforcement action.  Such authorizations are not easily gained because the initiation of armed conflict except in self-defense against “armed attack” is not permitted by the United Nations (UN) Charter and only the Security Council can endorse an action as a lawful “action of enforcement”.  Legal theorists suggest that if it can be established that preparations for a future attack have been confirmed, even if the attack has not be commenced, under international law the attack has actually “begun” but the UN has never upheld this opinion.  Militarily, the position does make sense, especially if the first two indictments of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) assembled at Nuremberg (1945-19465) to try the surviving Nazi leadership ((1) planning aggressive war & (2) waging aggressive war) are considered as a practical reality rather than in the abstract.

Legal (as opposed to moral or ethical) objections to preemptive or preventive wars were not unknown but until the nineteenth century, lawyers and statesmen gave wide latitude to the “right of self-defense” which really was a notion from natural law writ large and a matter determined ultimately on the battlefield, victory proof of the ends justifying the means.  Certainly, there was a general recognition of the right forcibly to forestall an attack and the first legal precedent of note wasn’t codified until 1842 in the matter of the Caroline affair (1837).  Then, some Canadian citizens sailed from Canada to the US in the Caroline as part of a planned offensive against the British in Canada.  The British crossed the border and attached, killing both Canadians and a US citizen which led to a diplomatic crisis and several years of low-level clashes.  Ultimately however, the incident led to the formulation of the legal principle of the "Caroline test" which demands that for self-defense to be invoked, an incident must be "…instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".  Really, that’s an expression little different in meaning to the criteria used in many jurisdictions which must exist for the claim of defense to succeed in criminal assault cases (including murder).  The "Caroline test" remains an accepted part of international law today, although obviously one which must be read in conjunction with an understanding of the events for the last 250-odd years.

The "Caroline test" however was a legal principle and such things need to be enforced and that requires both political will and a military mechanism.  In the aftermath of the Great War (1914-1918), that was the primary purpose of the League of Nations (LON), an international organization (the predecessor of the UN) of states, all of which agreed to desist from the initiation of all wars, (preemptive or otherwise).  Despite the reputation the LON now has as an entirely ineffectual talking shop, in the 1920s it did enjoy some success in settling international disputes and was perceived as effective.  It was an optimistic age, the Locarno Treaties (1925) and the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) appeared to outlaw war but the LON (or more correctly its member states) proved incapable of halting the aggression in Europe, Asia and Africa which so marked the 1930s.  Japan and Italy had been little punished for their invasions and Nazi Germany, noting Japan’s construction of China as a “technical aggressor” claimed its 1939 invasion of Poland was a “defensive war” and it had no option but to preemptively invade Poland, thereby halting the alleged Polish plans to invade Germany.  Berlin's claims were wholly fabricated.  The design of the UN was undertaken during the war and structurally was different; an attempt to create something which could prevent aggression.

There have been no lack of examples since 1939.  Both the British and Germans staged preemptive invasions of Norway in 1940 though the IMT at Nuremberg was no more anxious to discuss this Allied transgression than they were war crimes or crimes against humanity by anyone except the Nazis.  The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941 proceeded without undue difficulty but that couldn’t be said of the Suez Crisis of 1956 when the British, French and Israelis staged an war of aggression which not even London was hypocritical enough to claim was pre-emption or preventive; they called it a peace-keeping operation, a claim again wholly fabricated.  The Six-Day War (1967) which began when Israel attached Egypt is regarded by most in the West as preemptive rather than preventive because of the wealth of evidence suggesting Egypt was preparing to attack although the term “interceptive self-defense” has also be coined although, except as admirable sophistry, it’s not clear if this is either descriptive or helpful.  However, whatever the view, Israel’s actions in 1967 would seem not to satisfy the Caroline test but whether “…leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”, written in the age of sail and musketry, could reasonably be held in 1967 to convey quite the same meaning was obviously questionable.

Interest in the doctrine of preemption was renewed following the US invasion of Iraq (2003).  The US claimed the action was a necessity to intervene to prevent Iraq from deploying weapons of mass destruction (WMD) prior to launching an armed attack.  Subsequently, it was found no WMDs existed but the more interesting legal point is whether the US invasion would have been lawful had WMDs been found.  Presumably, Iraq’s resistance to the attack was lawful regardless of the status of the US attack.  The relevant sections (Article 2, Section 4) of the UN Charter are considered jus cogens (literally "compelling law" (ie “international law”)).  They prohibit all UN members from exercising "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".  However, this apparently absolute prohibition must be read in conjunction with the phrase "armed attack occurs" (Article 51, Section 37) which differentiates between legitimate and illegitimate military force.  It states that if no armed attack has occurred, no automatic justification for preemptive self-defense has yet been made lawful under the Charter and in order to be justified, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) that the state must have believed that the threat is real and not a mere perception and (2) that the force used must be proportional to the harm threatened.  As history has illustrated, those words permit much scope for those sufficiently imaginative.

Mr Putin (Vladimir Putin (b 1952; prime-minister or president of Russia since 1999)), although avoiding distasteful words like "aggression" “war” or “invasion”, did use the language associated with preemptive and preventive wars in his formal justification for Russia’s “special military operation” against Ukraine.  Firstly he claimed, Russia is using force in self-defence, pursuant to Article 51 of the Charter, to protect itself from a threat emanating from Ukraine.  This threat, if real, could justify preemptive self-defence because, even if an attack was not “imminent”, there was still an existential threat so grave that it was necessary immediately to act (essentially the same argument the US used in 2003).  This view met with little support, most holding any such theory of preemption is incompatible with Article 51 which really is restricted to permitting anticipatory self-defence in response to imminent attacks. Secondly he cited the right of collective self-defence of the Donetsk and Luhansk “republics” although neither are states and even if one accepts they’ve been subject to a Ukranian attack, the extent of Russia’s military intervention and the goal of regime change in Kyiv appear far to exceed the customary criteria of necessity and proportionality.  Finally, the Kremlin claimed the special military action was undertaken as a humanitarian intervention, the need to stop or prevent a genocide of Russians in Eastern Ukraine.  Few commented on this last point.

Martial

Martial (pronounced mahr-shuhl)

(1) Of a state or of people, inclined or disposed to war; warlike.

(2) Of, suitable for, or associated with war or the military.

(3) Characteristic of or befitting a warrior.

(4) As Martial Law, the administration of a country by the armed forces.

(5) In astronomy, Of or relating to Mars (obsolete except in historic use)

(6) In astrology, a celestial object under the astrological influence of the planet Mars (now rare).

(7) In science fiction (SF or SciFi), a synonym of Martian (inhabitant of the planet Mars) (archaic).

(8) In law, a trial conducted by a military court (usually administering military law but in special circumstances jurisdiction to civil law can be extended) (hyphenated in US use whereas in most of the English-speaking world a hyphen is used to differentiate between the noun (court martial) and verb (court-martial); the noun plural is courts martial.

(9) In chemistry & medicine, containing, or relating to iron (which alchemists symbolically associated with the planet Mars); chalybeate, ferric, ferrous (obsolete).

(10) In ornithology, as martial eagle, a large bird of prey of species Polemaetus bellicosus, native to sub-Saharan Africa.

(11) As a proper noun, a male given name from Latin, narrowly applied to certain historic persons (but some foreign cognates are modern given names); an Anglicized cognomen (given name) of the Spanish-born Roman poet and epigrammatist Marcus Valerius Martialis (circa 40-104).

1325–1375: From the Middle English martial (war-like, of or pertaining to war) from the Medieval Latin Mārtiālis (of Mars or war) from martiālis (belonging or dedicated to the Mārs, the Roman god of war, or to war), the construct being Mārti- (stem of Mārs) + -ālis (the Latin suffix used to form adjectives of relationship from nouns or numerals).  The sense of "connected with military organizations" (as opposed to civil) dates from the late fifteenth century and survives most obviously in the court-martial from the military system of justice.  The use (usually with a capital M-) in the sense of "pertaining to or resembling the planet Mars" emerged in English in the 1620s and the phrase Martial law (military rule over civilians) was first used in the 1530s.  Martial arts from 1909 cam to be the collective name for the fighting sports of Japan and the surrounding region (the Japanese bujutsu). 

Martial Law

Martial law describes the suspension of civilian government and the imposition of military control.  This is done typically as a temporary response to extraordinary circumstances such as natural disasters, invasions, revolutions or pandemics but is commonly used in occupied territories.  Except for areas of occupation in which government may wholly be staffed by the military, most systems of martial law adopt a hybrid model, using at least some of any extant civilian administration.  The experience varies, martial rule becoming sometimes essentially permanent; Egypt has been under martial law almost continuously since 1967, the most recent declaration in 1981.  It can be a brutal and bloody business (Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan et al, many of the usual suspects in Africa often not bothering with formal declarations) or benign to the point hardly anyone notices (Fiji).  The post-war prosecution of the surviving Nazi leadership, generally known as the Nuremberg trials, was technically a series of International Military Tribunals (IMTs), conducted in occupied Germany under martial law.  In Australia, Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur (1784–1854; Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemen's Land (present-day Tasmania) 1823-1836) imposed martial law between 1828-1830 during a violent conflict between colonists and indigenous peoples in Tasmania.  It remains the longest period of martial law in Australian history.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (b 1945) (left) with General Than Shwe (b 1933; chairman of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) 1992-2011) (centre) and General Khin Nyunt (b 1939; prime-minister of Myanmar 2003-2004) (right), Yangon, Myanmar, September 1994.

Martial law in Myanmar (Burma) was associated with the creation of a new word: slorc (pronounced slork).  Not best pleased with election results in 1988, the military seized power, announcing the formation of the State Law & Order Restoration Council (SLORC), dictionaries soon noting slorc had morphed from acronym to word, one suggesting it may endure as a synonym for junta (a military dictatorship, a borrowing from the used to describe the grand council of state in Spain and dating from the 1620s, from the Spanish junta (feminine of junto), from the Latin iunctus (perfect passive participle of iungō (join)).  Use however faded after 1997 when the SLORC (pronounced slork) was re-named SPDC (State Peace & Development Council) which, not rolling so well of the tongue, never caught on.

The SLORC's other contribution to language was changing the name of the country from Burma to Myanmar.  Both Burma and Myanmar are derived from the name of the majority Burman (Bamar) ethnic group, versions of both existing in Burmese and long used in different circumstances.  The regional variations had confused the British who, after decades of hegemony, since beginning occupation in 1854, annexed the country in 1886 (reputedly sustaining eight casualties in the battle), appending the territory as a province of British India under the Raj.  Prior to that, on maps and in documents, the spellings used had included Bermah, Burme, Birmah, Brama, Burmah, Burma & Burmah.  Even the usually decisive SLORC dithered, gazetting Union of Burma and then Union of Myanmar before settling on Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

Lindsay Lohan in martial mood.

Internationally, adoption has been mixed.  The United Nations (UN), on the basis that, as a general principle, when a recognized government advises the secretary-general a certain name and spelling should be used, that is followed, adopted Myanmar, a process hardly rare and one followed also by its predecessor (the League of Nations (1920-1946), Iran becoming Persia in 1935, the Upper Volta becoming Burkina Faso in 1954 etc.  Many countries and institutions follow the same protocol although the European Commission (the EC, the administrative component of the executive of the European Union (EU)), never happy except when sitting on the fence, uses "Burma/Myanmar".  On the Burma page of their World Factbook, the US Central Intelligence Agency CIA notes dryly “the US Government has not officially adopted the name.”

Venge

Venge (pronounced venj)

To avenge; to punish; to revenge (archaic).

1250–1300: From the Middle English vengen from the Old French venger & vengier (take revenge, avenge, punish) from the Latin vindicāre (assert a claim, claim as one's own; avenge, punish; vindicate). Also archaic were the related forms were vengefully, vengefulness venged & venging whereas the adjective vengeful, although rare, endured.  The noun vengeance, from the same era as venge, flourished.  Vengeance was from the Anglo-French vengeaunce, from twelfth century Old French vengeance & venjance (revenge, retribution).  Venge & avenge are verbs, revenge is a noun & verb, vengeance & vengefulness are nouns, vengeful is an adjective and vengefully is an adverb; the most common noun plural is vengeances. 

Venge long ago became archaic and is now extinct except when used in a historical context or for literary effect.  Venge is the verb transitive, venges the third-person singular simple present, venging the present participle and venged the simple past and past participle.  Synonyms include vindicate, avenge, chasten, punish, chastise, revenge, repay, redress, requite, square, return, get, fix, retort, reciprocate, score, defend, match, justify and payback.  Venge is one of the unusual words in English which went extinct while various derived forms (vengeance; vengeful; avenge) flourished and the translations of the Bible probably encouraged use, God being vengeful, there’s much vengeance in the Bible:

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Paul to the Romans; Romans 12:19–21

The vengeance weapons

The V-weapons deployed by Germany late in the World War II (1939-1945) all began as conventional projects of the military or the armaments industry but became known as the Vergeltungswaffen ("retaliatory weapons" or "reprisal weapons") after the label was in 1944 applied by Joseph Goebbels (1897–1945; Reich Minister of Propaganda 1933-1945) who used the word as a propaganda device, seeking to give civilians some hope there might be retaliation against (and perhaps even relief from) the area-bombing campaigns being conducted against cities all over the Reich.  The Allies generally translated Vergeltungswaffen as “vengeance weapons”, the best-known of the devices the V-1 & V-2. 

The terminology can be confusing, the vengeance weapons often conflated with the so-called Wunderwaffen (superweapons, or wonderweapons) of which there were literally dozens on drawing boards, in development or (occasionally) in use but the Vergeltungswaffen were just a highly-visible sub-set, although, being so well-publicized and relatively numerous, they do tend more to figure in the popular imagination.  Goebbels had been talking of the Wunderwaffen since 1943 and Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader), German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) had hinted at their existence since 1939 although there’s still debate about the technology to which he alluded.  Confusingly, historians writing in English also use the term “miracle weapons”, perhaps because Hitler, once he realized the war was lost (and the timing of this is debated, a vague consensus being he probably understood it couldn’t be won after the strategic failure of Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel or the Kursk offensive) in mid-1943 and that it was lost when the Ardennes Counteroffensive (Battle of the Bulge) was abandoned in early 1945) began increasingly to refer to the “Miracle of the House of Brandenburg”, a term coined by Frederick the Great (Frederick II, 1712–1786; King of Prussia 1740-1786) to describe the fortuitous series of political and military events which saved Prussia from defeat during the Seven Years' War (1756–1763).

By the latter stages of the war, German civilians were noted in the remarkably frank reports compiled by the SD (the Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers-SS (Security Service of the Reichsführer-SS), the internal intelligence agency of the SS and Nazi Party) as being increasingly skeptical about the Wunderwaffen, using words like “wonder” and “miracle” with some degree of irony.  Despite the opinion of some today, Dr Goebbels understood the limits of propaganda and had by 1945 already toned-down the emphasis on the weapons and had switched the focus to matters at least slightly less implausible.  In the post-war German language, Wunderwaffe has survived as a (usually derisive) reference to any universal solution said to be something said (improbably) able to solve many or especially difficult problems.

The actual history of the Vergeltungswaffen became murky almost as soon as the war ended.  What are well documented are the V-1, V-2 & V-3 and there’s some evidence to suggest the V-4 label was, at least in some documents, applied to one or more weapon before the end of hostilities.  The confusion is thought to have been engendered by the normal military & industrial practice of using the "V" designation (denoting Versuchs (attempt, experimental)) plus a number to keep track of all the prototype or version numbers which had to be documented.  Although not mentioned in his dairies or elsewhere, Goebbels seemed just to have hijacked Versuchs (V) and done a rebrand, the word vengeance well-suited to the time and place to which the gangster Nazi state had delivered Germany.  He spoke in public only ever of the V-1 & V-2 and the V-3 is documented in the German military archive but for the V-4 and beyond, the application of the V-x nomenclature is speculative, V-4 having (after the war) been applied variously to a Nazi atomic bomb, the manned version of the V-1, a number of radiological devices and the A9/A10 rocket combination.

After the war, there was a great profusion of often duplicated records spread all over the Reich and it was almost all on paper.  Project codes weren’t standardized even within industries or branches of the military but what was adhered to was the universal allocation of a system of version identifiers, usually as numbers.  A "V" to designate Versuchsmuster (prototypes) was almost always used, usually in conjunction with whatever was the current model designation (eg Ta 189 v1, Me 210 v2 et al) but within project teams, a lot of working documents circulated with just a version number listed; that being all that was required by the team focusing on the one model.  It’s that, at least in part, that’s thought to account for so many different things being described as V-4, V-7 etc, misinformation the expansion of the internet appears to have made more prevalent.

Ironically, the dozens of Wunderwaffen to which so many resources were allocated ultimately achieved more for the Allies than the Germans.  After the war, the British, the Americans and the Russians all took whatever they could grab of the German military and scientific research establishment (equipment and personnel), carted it off, reassembled what they had and put the scientists to work.  In ballistics, rocketry and advanced aviation, the victorious powers of the late 1940s essentially had in their hands what represented probably decades of peace-time research.  It’s not that developments like trans-Atlantic airliners, the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) or the moon landing wouldn’t have been possible without the windfall of the German research but these things almost certainly would have taken longer to achieve, presumably decades such was the pace of advancement during the war.

The Vergeltungswaffen eins (V-1) was the world’s first cruise missile.  One of the rare machines to use a pulse-jet, it emitted such a distinctive sound that those at whom it was aimed nicknamed it the “buzz-bomb” although it attracted other names including doodlebug.  In Germany, before Goebbels decided it was the V-1, the official military code name was Fi 103 (The Fi stood for Fieseler, the original builder of the airframe and most famous for their classic Storch (Stork), short take-off & landing (STOL) aircraft) but there were also the code-names Maikäfer (maybug) & Kirschkern (cherry stone).  Although not fast enough to be invulnerable either to air or ground-fire and insufficiently accurate to be used in precision attacks, it was nevertheless an outstandingly economical delivery system, able to carry a warhead of 850 kg (1,870 lb) to London at a tiny fraction of the cost of using manned aircraft for the same task with the priceless additional benefit of not risking the loss of aircrew.  While the Allied defenses against the V-1 did improve over time, it was only the destruction of the launch sites and the occupation of territory within launch range that ceased the attacks.  Until then, the V-1 remained a highly effective terror weapon but, like the V-2 and so much of the German armaments effort, bureaucratic empire-building and political intrigue compromised the efficiency of the project. 

The Vergeltungswaffen zwei (V-2) was developed first by the German military with the code name Aggregat 4 (A4) and was the first guided, long-range ballistic missile.  With a range of around 320 km (200 miles), it briefly entered the stratosphere (technically the mesosphere) on its trajectory towards the target and once in flight, there was no effective defense; falling to earth faster than the speed of sound, nor was there any warning.  Technologically, it was an extraordinary advance in delivery systems but it was a very expensive way (inaccurately) to deliver a relatively small payload of 725 kg (1,600 lb) of high explosive.  When nuclear warheads were developed, the economics of ballistic missiles were realized.  Deployed simultaneously too early in its development to be successful and too late in the war to realise its strategic purpose, the V2 was influential in the history of both ballistics and space exploration.  It (1) cost more to develop than the atom-bomb, (2) caused fewer casualties when deployed than died during its development and production (most of whom were slave-workers), (3) was the ancestor of the ICBMs and (4), saved the US one or two decades the of research required to produce both the ICBMs and the big Saturn rockets which powered the Apollo programme.  It’s a myth the V-2 had no strategic effect.  From the time the Allies were convinced the programme was a threat (and it took actual physical evidence to convince the British scientific establishment the V-2 was even theoretically possible), much attention was paid, even to the extent of diverting bomber command from their plans to instead concentrate some resources on the V-2.  As a terror weapon, the effectiveness was then unparalleled, the British government was forced to react to the effect on public morale.  Some historians still under-estimate just how many resources the Allies had to divert to deal with the V2s.

The Vergeltungswaffen drei (V-3) was a modern take on a very old-fashioned idea, the big-bore gun.  Essentially, the principle was of one barrel with the projectile launched with multiple charges, each successive propellant charge adding to the velocity and therefore the range.  The concept is something like that used in electronics whereby a signal transmitted along a wire is boosted at intervals by line-drivers to compensate for loses over distance.  To preserve secrecy during development, the project was known as the Hochdruckpumpe (High Pressure Pump or HDP) and, among engineers, it gained the nickname Fleißiges Lieschen (Busy Lizzie).  The idea in ballistics actually dates from the late nineteenth century and was conceived as a way of achieving a high-velocity, large calibre weapon while not requiting an excessively (and probably impossibly) large barrel.  Some of the V-3s were fired a brief operational life before the sites had to be abandoned because of the Allied advance and the two aimed at London were disabled in air attacks on their bunkers using 5,400-kilogram (11,900 lb) "Tallboy" deep-penetration “earthquake” bombs.  A number of claims have been made that certain weapons are the true Vergeltungswaffen vier (V-4) including a variety of missiles, nuclear devices and jet bombers but there’s no conclusive evidence any was ever labeled as such by either the German military or armaments industry.

The Pase Rock: Lindsay Lohan's Revenge.

Vintage

Vintage (pronounced vin-tij)

(1) The wine from a particular harvest or crop (usually a season).

(2) Of wine, the product of a season of outstanding quality (labeled by calendar year)

(3) The annual produce of the grape harvest, especially with reference to the wine obtained (technically also recorded as the “yield of grapes during one season”).

(4) The time of gathering grapes, or of winemaking.

(5) The act or process of producing wine; winemaking.

(6) The class of a dated object with reference to era of production or use.

(7) A wine of a specified vintage:

(8) Attributively, a subset of something, representing often the most memorable or highest quality items produced (although it can apply to all associated with the designated era) such as vintage cars, vintage dresses et al.  Sometimes, what constitutes a “vintage” item (as opposed to a “veteran”, “antique” et al) is defined by various institutions (vintage watches for example said to be those dated between 1870 and 1980).

(9) Attributively, something old-fashioned or obsolete.

(10) Attributively, something the being the best of its kind.

1400-1450: From the Middle English vendage & vyndage, from the Anglo-Norman vendenge, from vinter, from the Old French vendage & vendenge (vine-harvest, yield from a vineyard (and cognate with the French vendange)), from the Latin vindēmia (a harvest of grapes, vintage), the construct being vīn(um) (grape; wine) + dēmō (take off or away, remove), the construct being de (of; from, away from) + (e)mō (acquire, obtain).  A number of European languages including Spanish, Polish and (surprisingly) France adopted “vintage from English”.  Vintage is a noun, verb & adjective, vintager is a noun, vintagey is (a non-standard) adjective and vintaged & vintaging are verbs; the noun plural is vintages.

Warrnambool Heritage "The Aged Vintage" cheese.  Very good.

The meaning shifted to “age or year of a particular wine” after 1745 with the general adjectival sense of “being of an earlier time” emerging in the early 1880s.  In the business of winemaking, the notion of “vintages” came in the twentieth century to become elastic, the term not of necessity misleading, just one which needed to be understood.  Originally, a vintage was one wine, produced with grapes grown and harvested in the one season and that system is still used but the word has long been used also as a label to denote “something of a superior quality”.  The taste of wine being a subjective thing however and something the industry (often in the small print or with a “NV” added) markets as “non-vintage” may by many buyers be preferred to a “vintage” because the “un-vintaged” drop might be a blend of wine from several years; something routinely done to ensure a particular product tastes much the same from year to year.  Even then, while the regulatory environments in many jurisdictions do specify that to qualify as a “vintage”, the fluid in the bottle must contain a minimum volume from the year on the label but the “foreign” content can be as high as a quarter and according to EU regulators, in some places special exemptions have been granted permitting a 50/50 split.  The use also proved attractive to others and there are many “vintage” cheeses and other foodstuffs, the word in this context meaning little more than being sold at a higher price.

Brass era: 1915 Stutz Bearcat Model F.  Although untrue, it was for years part of Stutz folklore than anyone who died in one merited an obituary in the New York Times.

“Vintage” has been used of cars since 1928 but in the post-war years when the idea of cars as collectables coalesced, in various places categories were created and while somewhat arbitrary, the cut-off points between one era and another tended to reflect the existence of something significant which (at least for the majority of the vehicles involved) made them in some way identifiably different from what came before.  The terms vary: The most evocative is the “brass era” used in the US and it covers essentially anything produced between the beginning of organized production in the mid 1890s and 1915, the name chosen because of the extensive use of brass for fittings such as headlamp surrounds radiators and levers, the polished metal lending the distinctiveness.  The choice of 1915 as the end of the brass era reflected the decline in the use of the material as mass production made the use of other materials more attractive but the main factor was that was the year Ford ceased use for the Model T, the car which had for years dominated the market.  In the UK (and therefore throughout most of the old British Empire), cars produced prior to 1919 were called “veteran” although there was for a time a fashion to speak of them as “Edwardian, a reference to the reign of Edward VII (1841–1910; King of the UK & Emperor of India 1901-1910), the imprecision in the dates accounted for by “Edwardian” being used as a descriptor of the fashion, architecture etc of the era rather than the reign proper.  “Vintage” cars are those made between 1919-1930 (or 1916-1930 in US use) and as an epoch that follows what was at the time called “post-war” (between the end of the World War (1914-1918) and the onset of the Great Depression.  Conveniently, it conforms (more or less also to the advances in engineering and style which made the machines of the 1920s distinct from those of the next decade.

Post-war classic: 1948 Cisitalia 202 CMM by Vignale.

So, what in political science are the “inter-war years” are divided by the collector car community into “vintage” and “pre-war”, the later epoch being 1930-1942 (US passenger car production ending early in 1942).  Most of what was produced between 1945-1948 was a continuation of what was abandoned with the onset of hostilities but nothing produced after 1945 is grouped with the “pre-war” cohort and the era is generally called “post-war classics” and depending on who is writing the classification, that period ends somewhere around 1960-1962, motoring’s beginning of “the modern” although that’s obviously inexact, some strikingly modern stuff coming from as early as the 1940s and some true relics still on sale as late as 1968.  These definitions don’t apply to stuff made outside the West and in places like the Warsaw Pact nations, the relics would endure until the 1990s; nor do they include retro devices like the Morgan or products of pure-functionalism like Jeeps and Land Rovers.  In the modern age, the labeling has changed and the tendency now is to use self-explanatory terms like “1970”s, “muscle car era” etc.

Lindsay Lohan in a vintage Herve Leger bandage dress, New York, May 2007 (left) and in a vintage-style dress, New York, February 2017.    

In fashion, “vintage” can mean a piece from decades ago or just a few seasons earlier.  Vintage items can sometimes be genuine museum pieces or simply be “old” enough to have gained some sort of respectability.  To be “vintage”, something needs to be the product of an acknowledged designer or manufacturer; items which have gained their notoriety for some other reason (who it’s associated with or the circumstances in which it was worn) can be newsworthy but they’re not “vintage”.  The word is used also of style, a “vintage look” an indicating that an outfit is something which either recalls something associated with an older style or uses known motifs to achieve the effect.  Depending on the implementation, the latter can also be treated as a “retro” whereas a “vintage look” is something where the relationship is more vague.

There is vintage and there is retro: Lindsay Lohan in an art deco mini-dress, said to be a vintage original, paired with a pair of retro Prada stilettos in burgundy.

Pontoon

Pontoon (pronounced pon-toon)

(1) In military use, a boat, boat-like device or some other floating structure used as one of the supports for a temporary bridge (often styled as “pontoon bridge) placed over a river, canal or similar waterway.

(2) A float for a derrick, landing stage etc.

(3) In nautical use, a float (often inflatable) for raising a sunken or deeply laden vessel in the water; a camel or caisson.

(4) In aviation, a seaplane’s floats.

(5) In some places (1) an alternative name for the card game blackjack (also as 21 or twenty-one, an alteration of the French ving-un (an obsolete variant of vingt-et-un (twenty-one)) and (2) in the game, the combination of an ace with a ten or court card when dealt to a player as his first two cards.

(6) In nautical freight & passenger handling, a lighter or barge used for loading or unloading ships.

(7) In automotive design, a style in which the coachwork features smooth, flowing curves extending from the front to the rear without interruption.

1585–1595: From the Middle French ponton, from the fourteenth century Old French ponton (bridge, drawbridge, boat-bridge; flat-bottomed boat), from the Latin pontōn-, from pontō (flat-bottomed boat, punt), from pōns (bridge); a pontōnem was a “ferryboat”.  The use in some places to describe the card game (an alteration of the French ving-un (an obsolete variant of vingt-et-un (twenty-one) dates from 1916 and entered English when French & British troops played the game on the Western Front during World War I (1914-1918).  In engineering, the pontoon bridge (a roadway supported on pontoons) was described as early as 1778.  Pontoon, pontooning & pontooneer are nouns and pontooned is an adjective & verb; the noun plural is pontoons.

Bugatti T32s at the French Grand Prix, Tours, 1923.

Attracted by gains to be realized in aerodynamic efficiency, in 1923 Bugatti fabricated four T32 race cars to compete in that year’s French Grand Prix using the pontoon principle.  Bodied in aluminum, the stubby little machines were nicknamed “the Tanks” and there’s certainly a resemblance to the lines of the World War I tanks but, designed without the use of a wind-tunnel, the aviation influenced airfoil shape chosen to increase top speed also possessed that other quality need by aircraft: lift.  The combination of speed and lift was of course a recipe for instability and the T32s showed a marked inclination to leave the track.  Despite this discouraging start, the pontoon approach would ultimately prevail but for decades, instances of aerodynamically-induced instability would plague the tracks, the death toll not small.

Small & large: 1926 Hanomag 2/10 PS Coupé (Kommissbrot) (left) & 1933 Volvo Venus Bilo (right).  The larger the pontoon, the more slab-sided the tendency.

In automotive design, term "pontoon" was used to a style in which the coachwork features smooth, flowing curves extending from the front to the rear without interruption.  The use of the word alluded to the nautical term used to describe a floatation device attached to the sides of a boat or ship to provide stability.  The objectives of the early adopters of the motif included (1) aerodynamic efficiency, (2) a reduction in the number of components needed to form a body, (3) enhanced efficiency through the allocation of more usable internal space and (4) a sleek and streamlined appearance.  It took decades of experimentation and there were a number of notable failures in just about every aspect of the pursuit of those objectives but, beginning in the 1920s, literally dozens of recognizably pontoon-like forms entered production, some sold by the thousand but it’s notable the most successful ventures were those which involved smaller (sometimes on the scale which would later be called micro-cars) vehicles.  On those, the styling tended to be less jarring to the aesthetic sensibilities of those who would actually pay for the things; on the larger machines, the most commonly applied epithet was “slab-sided”.

The pontoon would prevail but in one little corner of England, the 1930s lasted until 1968.  Remarkably, when the NSU Ro80 (left) was released in 1967, the Vanden Plas Limousine (right, complete with a divided windscreen made of two flat panes) was on-sale in a showroom in the same street.

Still, as the 1930s unfolded, the trend was certainly gaining strength and had it not been for the blast of war, things might have evolved much as they did although like many of the aspects of science and engineering which benefited from the extraordinary progress realized during those years, the evolution at the very least would probably have taken much longer.  As it happened, in the late 1940s as the first generation of post-war vehicles was released in the US, the pontoon motif was almost universal, only some vestigial traces of the old, separated ways remaining to reassure.  In Europe, some clung longer to the old ways and in the UK, even by the late 1960s there were still traditionalists finding a tiny market still existed for the old ways bit but mostly, during the previous decade the pontoon had taken its place as one of the symbols of mid century modernism.

Bridge on the road to the pontoon: 1948 Mercedes-Benz 170 (left) & 1951 Mercedes-Benz 220 (right).

One range was so definitively pontoonish that it even picked up the nickname “pontoon”.  Daimler-Benz emerged from World War II not so much diminished as almost destroyed and in 1945 the board of directors felt compelled to issue a statement declaring “Daimler-Benz had ceased to exist in 1945” although that proved pessimistic, a modest programme of repair and maintenance soon established and the next year, small scale production resumed of the pre-war 170V although circumstances were challenging and in two years barely 600 left the improvised assembly line.  However, the currency reform and economic stabilization of 1948 transformed things and marked the birth of the post-war Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) and the 170 range, so appropriate to the austere times was soon augmented and then replaced by more advanced models but the pre-war styling was carried over substantially unchanged.

The Mercedes-Benz Pontoons: 1953 180 (left), 1956 219 (centre) and 1959 220 SE cabriolet (right).

Lindsay Lohan on pontoon, Sardinia, 2016.

It was however obvious that the approach was antiquated and in 1951 work was begun on a new range of mass-produced four-door sedans which abandoned the old separate chassis for a unibody.  This was the car which came to be called the pontoon and the first version was released in 1953 as the 180, fitted with 1.8 litre (110 cubic inch) four-cylinder engine in both petrol & diesel forms.  Stylistically, it was among the simplest, least adorned interpretations of the pontoon idea and has been compared both to “three boxes” and “on loaf of bread atop another” and among mainstream vehicles, probably only the contemporary British Fords (the Mark Consul, Zephyr & Zodiac (the so called “three graces”)) enjoyed the same austerity of line.  The pontoon though looked undeniably modern compared with its predecessors and it was a success, soon augmented by the longer 220 fitted with the 2.2 litre (134 cubic inch) straight-six with which more than any other the company rebuilt its reputation.  As the Wirtschaftswunder gathered pace, demand emerged for something more exclusive and a 220 coupé and cabriolet were added although, very expensive, production didn’t reach far into four figures.  More popular was the blend of the six cylinder engine with the short body of the 180, the engineering of which was simple enough but finding the appropriate nomenclature must have required some discussion and, given the way thing were then done by Germans, presumably reached board level for approval.  The solution was to call it the 219 which was a unique departure from the factory’s naming conventions and the only time in recent history the base three-digit model designation has ended in other than a 0 (zero).  Model proliferation would follow and the problem would reoccur and in later years another convention was adopted which lead to a confusing alpha-numeric soup (190 E 2.6, 300 E 2.8 et al so under that regime the 219 would have become the 180 2.2) until in the early 1990s the whole system was re-organized.  The pontoon line lasted until 1963 although by then it looked a relic and had been cut to a few lower-cost utilitarian models.  The pontoons were really the last memory of the austere years before the exuberance of the 1960s affected even Daimler-Benz.

OSI Silver Fox.  Race car designers had before tried the twin-pontoon idea without great success but in 1967, attracted by the uniquely achievable aerodynamic advantages offered by what was essentially a “wing with wheels”, OSI built the Silver Fox for the Le Mans 24 Hour endurance race.  Financial difficulties doomed that project and the potential of concept was undermined when the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (the FIA; the International Automobile Federation (and international sports dopiest regulatory body)) banned “movable aerodynamic aids”).